Please consider registering
Guest
sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register
Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search
Forum Scope


Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
sp_Feed sp_TopicIcon
JOHN, PAUL, GEORGE and RINGO - *re-shuffle that (hackneyed) sequence for a change??
10 August 2020
7.08am
Avatar
Timothy
Nutopia
Candlestick Park
Members
Forum Posts: 1384
Member Since:
14 June 2016
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

The correct order is John, John, John, John. john-lennon-salute_gif

The following people thank Timothy for this post:

kelicopter, JW OBoogie

1.The Beatles 2.Sgt. Pepper 3.Abbey Road 4.Magical Mystery Tour 5.Rubber Soul 6.Revolver 7.Help! 8.Let It Be
9.A Hard Day’s Night 10.Please Please Me 11.Beatles For Sale 12.With The Beatles 13.Yellow Submarine

16 August 2020
11.48am
Avatar
edwardtheconfessor
Yellow Submarine in a Sea of Holes in Pepperland
The Indra
Members
Forum Posts: 36
Member Since:
6 July 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

kelicopter said
Here's my thinking @edwardtheconfessor

John and Paul going first in the order makes sense with them being the songwriters, especially in the early years. Ringo not being a songwriter,

  

(The first of) my  reactions then, as promised (or 'threatened'? Lol!) to kelicopter and others who have taken the trouble to post responses here... and to anyone else who may wish to continue the debate??

Firstly (as I quote kelicopter above):- John (Lennon) and Paul (Mc. Cartney) were the principal songwriters?  Well, yes; and sort of no.  In point of fact we now know that George was also writing - even by the time of their recording contract.  However, his work was constantly being sidelined by Lennon and Mc. Cartney.  Many popular music historians have since noted this, and Geroge himslef later talked about it - rather ruefully - after the break-up.  His own composition 'Only A Northern Song ' (one of the very few actual, and new, Beatles tracks on the 1969 double 'Yellow Submarine '): that song rather obliquely hints at this - and George himself later enlarged on this in interview. As a matter of fact, undeniable evidence there was of his writing abllity, even as early as 1964 ('Don't Bother Me ' by Harrison was on their second allbum 'With The Beatles ');  and it's certainly as good a song as anything Lennon and Mc.Cartney were writing at the time.

And by the time of the 1965 albums 'Help ' and 'Rubber Soul ' he was already contributing manifestly... and what is more, he was writing alone.  Lennon and Mc. Cartney still continued, though, to resist putting any of his compostions out as single material tracks.  As far as I can recall only two  ever were:-'The Inner Light ' - as effectively the flipside of 'Lady Madonna ' -in 1968 ... and 'Something ' - as one of thier last releases anyway - in late 1969 c/w 'Come Together '. While George was energetically writng - alone - and struggling, and eventually succeeding, in getting SOME of his material at least onto albums: these, of course, were still the heady days of Beatlemania. So, there was little excuse really - ever in fact - for putting him in a 'second tier' on this account.  And we should rememer that, as I have already noted in earlier posts on this thread, he was the LEAD (guitarist) - and without him most of their material would have sounded empty indeed (in fact, they would have had to engage a session guitarist to fulfill this role; so in this sense George was actually LESS 'expendable' than either John or Paul)... and I mean on ANY of their numbers, really; and up until around 1967 certainly  - and even after 'Sergeant Pepper'  once again;  as their sound reverted, rather much again, to guitar-based leads (and George's lead guitar playing becomes even more telling).

'Ringo didn't write'? Well, we now know that Ringo too was capable of writng - even that long ago.  'Don't Pass Me By ' for example, was actually written by him years before Lennon and Mc. Cartney saw fit to include it on the 'White Album ' of 1968.  'What Goes On ?' (on 'Rubber Soul ' of 1965) was co-written by Ringo, and it too is as good, in its way,  as anything Lennon and/or Mc. Cartney - or Harrsion, for that matter - were writng at that time. George later confirmed that 'Octopus's Garden ' ... which was actually written by Ringo also; by at least 1969 (but put out on 'Abbey Road ' ) was really Ringo's work entirely  [Ringo even later told, good-humouredly as was his way, in an interview, that he had been insprired to write this after tasting squid for the first time (some 'legend' versions of this have it that it was atually octopus itself, which is also edible in fact! I know; I've tried it myself!)]. 

In any event, I am very much in doubt that most of those (including even the 'old squares' who could also recite their names in the stereotyped order, in the days of Beatlemania) were even aware of all these nuances and subtleties.  Further: by about 1966, Lennon and Mc. Cartney were largley writing separately (as George Martin and others who worked with them later confirmed) and they were moving in quite different musical directions.  And, if you tote up 'who was writing what' by about the time of 1965 even, I think you will find Lennon and Mc. Cartney about 'even stevens' with each other in this, and with George pretty close behhid either one of them separately. 

So; no I cannot accept that this was ever the reason for always 'rattling it off' as 'John, Paul...' (etcetera!) and in that - forever unalterable - sequence.  No.  As I will come back to insisting, again and again - that was NOT the reason for this early established, and therafter UNALTERABLE;  'pecking order'. It was that pure and simple.  It was a 'pecking order' (or thought to be so).  Not chosen by The Beatles  themselves,  NO  not at all.  But a percieved one, nevertheless - imposed by outisders, as the 'holy grail' of introducing them - and - I'm afraid - one of (*outside*) perceived order of importance; theafter inviolable in the customary patter etcetera.  It was always  having little or no regard to such things as songwriters or songwriting ability, alas; or even as to how the balance of this may have altered (as precieved through what WAS actually being released over those heady years)... or to much else it would seem.

[I will take up some of the other points raised by kelikopter and others soon, in separate posts here, to follow very soon.  Meanwhile, all thoughts and feedbacks here - to all this so far - are, of course,  most welcome]. 

The following people thank edwardtheconfessor for this post:

vonbontee

RWS_Tarot_00_Fool.jpg     "And, in the end; the love you take - is equal to the love YOU MAKE!" "Nowhere Man, THE WORLD is AT YOUR COMMAND!"

16 August 2020
4.06pm
Avatar
edwardtheconfessor
Yellow Submarine in a Sea of Holes in Pepperland
The Indra
Members
Forum Posts: 36
Member Since:
6 July 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

edwardtheconfessor said

kelicopter said

Here's my thinking @edwardtheconfessor

John and Paul going first in the order makes sense with them being the songwriters, especially in the early years. Ringo not being a songwriter,

  

(The first of) my  reactions then, as promised (or 'threatened'? Lol!) to kelicopter and others who have taken the trouble to post responses here... and to anyone else who may wish to continue the debate??

Firstly (as I quote kelicopter above):- John (Lennon) and Paul (Mc. Cartney) were the principal songwriters?  Well, yes; and sort of no.  In point of fact we now know that George was also writing - even by the time of their recording contract.  However, his work was constantly being sidelined by Lennon and Mc. Cartney.  Many popular music historians have since noted this, and Geroge himslef later talked about it - rather ruefully - after the break-up.  His own composition 'Only A Northern Song ' (one of the very few actual, and new, Beatles tracks on the 1969 double 'Yellow Submarine '): that song rather obliquely hints at this - and George himself later enlarged on this in interview. As a matter of fact, undeniable evidence there was of his writing abllity, even as early as 1964 ('Don't Bother Me ' by Harrison was on their second allbum 'With The Beatles ');  and it's certainly as good a song as anything Lennon and Mc.Cartney were writing at the time.

And by the time of the 1965 albums 'Help ' and 'Rubber Soul ' he was already contributing manifestly... and what is more, he was writing alone.  Lennon and Mc. Cartney still continued, though, to resist putting any of his compostions out as single material tracks.  As far as I can recall only two  ever were:-'The Inner Light ' - as effectively the flipside of 'Lady Madonna ' -in 1968 ... and 'Something ' - as one of thier last releases anyway - in late 1969 c/w 'Come Together '. While George was energetically writng - alone - and struggling, and eventually succeeding, in getting SOME of his material at least onto albums: these, of course, were still the heady days of Beatlemania. So, there was little excuse really - ever in fact - for putting him in a 'second tier' on this account.  And we should rememer that, as I have already noted in earlier posts on this thread, he was the LEAD (guitarist) - and without him most of their material would have sounded empty indeed (in fact, they would have had to engage a session guitarist to fulfill this role; so in this sense George was actually LESS 'expendable' than either John or Paul)... and I mean on ANY of their numbers, really; and up until around 1967 certainly  - and even after 'Sergeant Pepper'  once again;  as their sound reverted, rather much again, to guitar-based leads (and George's lead guitar playing becomes even more telling).

Oh, and his contributions to VOCAL HARMONIES /BACKING VOCALS (i.e. with Paul whenever John was singing lead,... or with John, whenever Paul was singing lead; not to mention his own lead vocals (when he got them!)): these were vital really, and indsipensible to their sound as well - the 'microphone sharing' which became so legendary to their stage appreance being very much an organic part of that, throughout those 'Beatlemania' years. Take away that vital 'third voice' in the harmony or backing vocals, on, say  a 'Please Please Please Me ' an 'Ask Me Why ' or a 'There's A Place ';  a  'She Loves You ' or an 'I wanna Hold Your Hand'; and most especially a 'This Boy '.. not to mention a 'Twist And Shout ':- and what would you lose ? EVERYTHING that made them so distinctive, I will suggest! (And this is only to talk of theirr long run of top ten and number one 1963 songs that got everyone, but everyone talking about them - and many fanatical - here in UK!)

'Ringo didn't write'? Well, we now know that Ringo too was capable of writng - even that long ago.  'Don't Pass Me By ' for example, was actually written by him years before Lennon and Mc. Cartney saw fit to include it on the 'White Album ' of 1968.  'What Goes On ?' (on 'Rubber Soul ' of 1965) was co-written by Ringo, and it too is as good, in its way,  as anything Lennon and/or Mc. Cartney - or Harrsion, for that matter - were writng at that time. George later confirmed that 'Octopus's Garden ' ... which was actually written by Ringo also; by at least1969 (but put out on 'Abbey Road ' ) was really Ringo's work entirely  [Ringo even later told, good-humouredly as was his way, in an interview, that he had been insprired to write this after tasting squid for the first time (some 'legend' versions of this have it that it was atually octopus itself, which is also edible in fact! I know; I've tried it myself!)].

In fact, I would say that - rather than the 'ritual' of Lennon and Mc. Cartney 'putting their heads together' once every album (exepct for 'A Hard Day's Night ', for which they didn't even bother to do that!) in order to 'write a song for Ringo to sing' - they would have done much better (and I'm quite sure the fans would have liked this too) to have ENCOURAGED Ringo a little more in his own songwriting... instead of, as I believe to have been the case, BELITTLING IT.  That is a little far-fetched?  Well, not on the (actual and now known to be chronicled) evidence that I have just preseented here: for example, of  CLEAR evidence that they did precisely that with George's compositons - and most especially in the very early days.  Granted; Ringo didn't actually want to sing solo all that often (or at least, that's what some biographers argue, anyway?); yet the very fact is that, as the sleeve notes themselves on 'With The Beatles ' suggest; the fans always liked it when Ringo got a vocal solo from time to time too - from the days of 'Boys ' onwards (check out those sleeve notes!). 

Myslef, I tend to opine that his voice could even have contributed much, much more than it did (was that a 'John and Paul decision from above' as well'?) to some of the vocal harmonies.  We can now see evidence, from a few (previously unreleased) recordings that he WAS capable in this regard too.  Do others agree on this?    I can even cite instances, not a few of them (e.g. on 'The Morcambe and Wise Show', in 1964) when, for example, Ernie Wise interviews, and has jokes and repartee with, the three 'front row' Bealtes (George, John, Paul)... whilst Ringo remains - as he almost invariably was 'right at the back' (on a plinth, usually) 'half hidden' behind his kit - and, apart from Eric Mrorcambe's occasional shouts to him - of 'Hello Bongo' (deliberaltey getting Ringo's name wrong... for added humour, no doubt!) - apart from that, Ringo is effectively ignored!  They don't even give hims a microphone.

An accident?  An oversight? NOT AT ALL!  All this had been carefully pre-rehearsed (yes, even down to the corny jokes).  And how often did you ever hear Ringo announce a song?  Once in a Blue Moon (and that, usually, only when HE was going to sing it). DISGRACEFUL!  SHAMEFUL!!  Only, in fact, in the two (successful) movies, where Ringo's pivotal role as part of the quartet cannot be ignored, do we start to get a much more balanced presentation generally!  True??  Good old, uncomplaining Ringo?  Well, in point of fact, and for a while (after they stopped touring and he was beginning to feel superfluous) Ringo atually WALKED OUT... for a while, as we now know (check out some of the comment posts on the 'Ringo's best drumming' thread!)

 

In any event, I am very much in doubt that most of those (including even the 'old squares' who could also recite their names in the stereotyped order, in the days of Beatlemania) were even aware of all these nuances and subtleties.  Or perhpas, they didn't care? Further: by about 1966, Lennon and Mc. Cartney were largley writing separately (as George Martin and others who worked with them later confirmed) and they were moving in quite different musical directions.  And, if you tote up 'who was writing what' by about the time of 1965 even, I think you will find Lennon and Mc. Cartney about 'even stevens' with each other in this, and with George pretty close behhid either one of them separately. 

So; no I cannot accept that this was ever the reason for always 'rattling it off' as 'John, Paul...' (etcetera!) and in that - forever unalterable - sequence.  No.  As I will come back to insisting, again and again - that was NOT the reason for this early established, and therafter UNALTERABLE;  'pecking order'. It was that pure and simple.  It was a 'pecking order' (or thought to be so).  Not chosen by The Beatles  themselves,  NO  not at all.  But a perceived one, nevertheless - imposed by outisders, as the 'holy grail' of introducing them - and - I'm afraid - one of (*outside*) perceived order of IMPORTANCE; theafter inviolable in the customary patter etcetera.  It was always  having little or no regard to such things as songwriters or songwriting ability, alas; or even as to how the balance of this may have altered (as precieved through what WAS actually being released over those heady years)... or to much else it would seem.

[I will take up some of the other points raised by kelikopter and others soon, in separate posts here, to follow very soon.  Meanwhile, all thoughts and feedbacks here - to all this so far - are, of course,  most welcome]. 

  

RWS_Tarot_00_Fool.jpg     "And, in the end; the love you take - is equal to the love YOU MAKE!" "Nowhere Man, THE WORLD is AT YOUR COMMAND!"

31 August 2020
1.47pm
Avatar
Tony Japanese
Hollywood Bowl
Members
Forum Posts: 654
Member Since:
11 September 2018
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I was thinking about this thread earlier today (as you do) and my answer to the question, 'why John, Paul, George and Ringo' is because of the following:

Band line ups should be listed in the following sequence (in order of importance):

1. Singer

2. Songwriter

3. Guitarist (a. Lead, b. Rhythm)

4. Bassist

5. Other Instruments

6. Drummer.

31 August 2020
2.48pm
Avatar
Starr Shine?
Waiting in the sky
Apple rooftop
Members
Forum Posts: 15940
Member Since:
1 November 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Band line ups should be listed in the following sequence (in order of importance):

How dare you put drummer last as least important! Drummers are the only parts of songs that matter. Everyone we should remove all parts of Beatles songs but the drums!

 

New order

 

Ringo Ringo Ringo the other three.

The following people thank Starr Shine? for this post:

Little Piggy Dragonguy, The Hole Got Fixed, JW OBoogie

https://youtu.be/52nwiTs7bk8

Brainwashed by RadiantCowbells.

If you can't log in and can't use the forum go here and someone will help you out.

31 August 2020
3.00pm
Avatar
Tony Japanese
Hollywood Bowl
Members
Forum Posts: 654
Member Since:
11 September 2018
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Starr Shine? said

Band line ups should be listed in the following sequence (in order of importance):

How dare you put drummer last as least important! Drummers are the only parts of songs that matter. Everyone we should remove all parts of Beatles songs but the drums!

 

New order

 

Bernard, Peter, Gillian, Stephen.

  

Pah. Only a drummer would think that.

I mean, I quote this from the other three Beatles (I think they said it sometime between 1962 and 1970)

"The rhythm's in the guitars".

 

P.s. I fixed your New Order line-up. 

31 August 2020
6.12pm
Avatar
Starr Shine?
Waiting in the sky
Apple rooftop
Members
Forum Posts: 15940
Member Since:
1 November 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

How double dare you, I challenge you to a battle of the bands, winner gets to set name order forever!

https://youtu.be/52nwiTs7bk8

Brainwashed by RadiantCowbells.

If you can't log in and can't use the forum go here and someone will help you out.

1 September 2020
2.20pm
Avatar
Tony Japanese
Hollywood Bowl
Members
Forum Posts: 654
Member Since:
11 September 2018
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Starr Shine? said
How double dare you, I challenge you to a battle of the bands, winner gets to set name order forever!

  

I think it was the great John Lennon who once said 'drummers will go. They will vanish and shrink. I needn't argue about that; I'm right and I'll be proved right. They're less popular than keytarists now."

The following people thank Tony Japanese for this post:

kelicopter
1 September 2020
5.31pm
Avatar
kelicopter
Sitting in an English Garden
Hollywood Bowl
Members
Forum Posts: 687
Member Since:
6 November 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Tony Japanese said

Starr Shine? said

How double dare you, I challenge you to a battle of the bands, winner gets to set name order forever!

  

I think it was the great John Lennon who once said 'drummers will go. They will vanish and shrink. I needn't argue about that; I'm right and I'll be proved right. They're less popular than keytarists now."

  

Expect an angry mob imminently, @Tony Japanese

rs-john-lennon02-049d053a-1f8a-4c5d-9991-279027677733.jpgImage Enlarger

The following people thank kelicopter for this post:

The Hole Got Fixed

"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans."

"When I cannot sing my heart, I can only speak my mind."

1 September 2020
10.21pm
Avatar
JW OBoogie
Ouch! Ow Ow Ouch!
Royal Command Performance
Members
Forum Posts: 280
Member Since:
24 June 2019
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

The order could be Paul, Ringo, John, George based on the number of Beatlets they've produced.

The following people thank JW OBoogie for this post:

kelicopter

Turn off your stream, relax and float down mind

2 September 2020
7.25am
Avatar
Starr Shine?
Waiting in the sky
Apple rooftop
Members
Forum Posts: 15940
Member Since:
1 November 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Til band membership is hereditary and passes down even if said band is over.

https://youtu.be/52nwiTs7bk8

Brainwashed by RadiantCowbells.

If you can't log in and can't use the forum go here and someone will help you out.

4 September 2020
12.39pm
Avatar
Von Bontee
A Hole In The Road
Rishikesh
Members
Forum Posts: 4474
Member Since:
14 December 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Tony Japanese said
I was thinking about this thread earlier today (as you do) and my answer to the question, 'why John, Paul, George and Ringo' is because of the following:

Band line ups should be listed in the following sequence (in order of importance):

4. Singer

6. Songwriter

2. Guitarist (a. Lead, b. Rhythm)

3. Bassist

5. Other Instruments

1. Drummer.

  

Fixed!

apple01

The following people thank Von Bontee for this post:

The Hole Got Fixed

One day, a tape-op got a tape on backwards, he went to play it, and it was all "Neeeradno-undowarrroom" and it was "Wow! Sounds Indian!"
-- Paul McCartney

                 Winner-Funniest-Post-and-Most-Creative-Contribution-2017-1.pngfunniest-post-badge2018.png

6 September 2020
6.11am
Avatar
edwardtheconfessor
Yellow Submarine in a Sea of Holes in Pepperland
The Indra
Members
Forum Posts: 36
Member Since:
6 July 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Hi everyone!  I'm back (thread starter, if memories go back that far - lol!).

Seems clear; I did the right thing stepping back for a while and letting a debate flow a bit.  It sure seems to be doing that now! GREAT! (Let's hope we can keep it friendly - mock contentious, is of course all part of the fun... so long as it remains 'mock'!).

HOWEVER:- !!!!!

Von Bontee said

Tony Japanese said

I was thinking about this thread earlier today (as you do) and my answer to the question, 'why John, Paul, George and Ringo' is because of the following:

Band line ups should be listed in the following sequence (in order of importance):

4. Singer

6. Songwriter

2. Guitarist (a. Lead, b. Rhythm)

3. Bassist

5. Other Instruments

1. Drummer.

  

Fixed!

apple01

  

NO!!!!  I admit to being very confused by the  nunbering system used in the above listing.  However, I can see no other way to make sensible response here; than to take the above listing as if it were a simple 'top to bottom' listing of importance - which I think is what the original poster meant?? If so, then, therfore:-

I'm sorry folks, but I simply cannot let all this go unchallenged... at least not without myself also putting in my 'two penneth' here!  I could conduct a numerical search, if you wish, of everything The Beatles (but not inlcuding Paul Mc.Cartney solo et al, or Wings; and not inclduing The Plastic Onon Band and/or John Lennon solo... and not including any of George Harrison 's POST-Beatles recordings (or Ringo's either, for that matter) - so we leave all that out of the argument.  We talk, instead about recordings The Beatles actually made - while they were still The Beatles - even if, in some cases as we know, later released (but actually set down as BEATLES' numbers - in the years that they were still that (circa 1960-1970)).

And I think you will find:

1) VOCALS (lead, as well as supporting/backing and harmony)...  you will find John and Paul pretty much 'even stevens' in this regard (I think I have touched on this already in an earlier post on this thread); with Goerge not actually far behind.  (Many are the numbers on which his was a vital supporting voice to either John or Paul or both (when they were lead vocal) as well as doing lead vocals of his own, of course... and from the very beginning). So, I therefore discount argument 1) above (as I shall - simply - number it); if  it is supposed to support the assertion that 'John was the (usual) lead vocalist'.  No.  I won't accept that.

2) WRITERS: again; I may have to do an actual count (as above); but I think you will find that John and Paul - even when they (mostly) stopped writing together (probably by about 1966): come out, once again 'even stevens' as songwriters... and again with George not so very far behind (and certainly so from about 1965, when Lennon and Mc.Cartney seem to have begun to come round to the idea of seriously working on, and recording, George's compositions too  - and, be it noted, he also wrote ALONE (nearly always). So I therefore discount what I shall call point 2) above also; if it is an argument that Johhn should come first and Paul seond (with George a 'poor third')?  No, again. 

3) GUITARS NEXT:  But these arguments seem to have overlooked the fact that lead, rhythm and bass - even though two of these (lead and rhythm) are instruments tuned at the same pitch... yet these each perform DIFFERENT MUSICAL ROLES in the overall sound.  As I have already more than intimated in an earlier post on this thread: if you are going to argue for the (once traditional) lineup of lead, rythm and bass - and in that order (as it always was considered so then) then, by that token anyway: the 'pecking order' should have been GEORGE, JOHN, PAUL...  Will anyone gainsay that the LEAD is the most important (by reason of being most prominent anyway... after the vocals that is), the BASS nearly always necessary in some form - the RHYTHM GUITAR, however, tending to fall rather out of use by about the time that The Beatles folded up.  So: by that criterion: GEORGE, PAUL, JOHN...???

4) OTHER INSTRUMENTS:  The Beatles did use other instruments too, though;  on many of their recordings certainly... and, indeed, session musicians (even orchestras or 'mini-orchestras' later on) on some tracks, and George Martin himself not only added, as we know, some very clever studio effects and did quite a bit of the arranging, especially in the later years - but he also contributed instrumentally himself, usually keyboards (of different kinds) on some tracks - even from the beginning in point of fact.  Where exactly would we place these - and indeed, for that matter, John's harmomica phrasing - which he used rather liberally - and tellingly - in the earlier days?.  In fact, from about the time of 'Strawberry Fields' and the album 'Sergeant Pepper' - there were numbers of tracks which were entirley arranged (with Martin's help, and with The Beatles themselves completely complicit in this) with  no guitars on them at all!  Hmmm!

5) DRUMS: In point of fact, I think you will find that this was the ONE thing that was ALWAYS considered necessary - from the very birth of contemporary music itself (or 'popular' music, if you like) as soon as bands to play this began to exist at all:- through ragtime, blues, jazz, swing, Rock 'N' Roll ', skiffle (even if a 'broomstick bass' and washboard was used in some of these cases) and pop/beat music also always had a dummer - and including all through The Beatles' active years... whatever other instumental lineup you had (be this brass sections with trumpet(s) and trombone(s), saxophones, keyboards (or not) and etcetera etcetera); the one thing you ALWAYS had, though,  was a A DRUMMER: whose origin dated back, in fact, to the breaking up of the old miltary marching bands (after the end of the American Civil War - when ragtime and music hall bands slowly began to develop, as the nineteenth century turned into the twentieth).  Take away the drums, or decide to omit the drummer altogether and ...  Hmmm, again. No wonder The Beatles were in sore need of one, even when they first went to Hamburg (in 1960)!

If there are two instruments you really could not do without (and it still seems to be largely true today - nowtwihstanding all the amazing things we can now do with recording equipment, electronic effects, drum synthesisers, rhythm boxes or pads,  and so on) are a DRUMMER and a BASS PLAYER of some kind :- be that latter , as it was until probably from about the 1920s to the 1950s, a DOUBLE BASS;  played pizzicato (i.e. with the fingers) or even, as in much jazz and early Rock 'N' Roll played slap-back style ... replacing as this did the, still earlier, use of the BASS TUBA OR A SOUSAPHONE; to fulfill an - effectively - similar role to that which the double bass would take over, by the time of most organised jazz bands (a TUBA is heard being used in this way on 'When I'm Sixty-Four ' - with a deliberate attempt to re-create that early 'dixie-land (trad) sound').  Or be that as it began to be, increasingly, from about the 1950s: a BASS GUITAR in fact - as is now more usual of course. 

Some musicians still refer to the drums and bass guitar togther as the 'rhythm section' or 'rhythm unit' (and no, they do not include in this, by the way, also the rhythm guitar).  I would have to say, that I myself have never been entirely happy with this shorthand, because I know - and as we sought to achieve in our own beat group - a good bass guitar, played by a capable musican, should be able to do a lot more than merely 'pump out a rhythm'.  The bass guitar, we always insisted, can - yes - provide a kind of 'pulse' to the music (I know - because my cousin and co-founder and I (he the drummer mostly, but able to play other instuments, I the keyboard player but ditto: we had to teach (in a friendly way) one or two bass guitarists that kind of bass guitar effect that we wanted); but that is a little different, and I think we have to leave that discussion just now.

So, as to argumnet four above (as I shall call it), then - well, if we go solely on critereon of musicial indispensibility to the overall sound (to its FOUNDATION, if you like) - whatever else in terms of instrumentation you may care to have... so long at least as The Beatles still chose to use the traditional beat group format at all: then the 'pecking order' would have to run:- RINGO, PAUL, GEORGE, JOHN.  See my point?

No, I'm sorry.  There is simply no getting away from the fact that this UNALTERABLE order became very soon 'set in stone' and invariably 'trotted out' by pretty much everyone (even by those who DETESTED The Beatles and their music, and even by those who knew (and cared) nothing about music at all.).. NOT for any of the above, I will say, 'ingeniously devised' justifications being offered here, after the event - but, instead, the crude and simple (and in my opinion singularly unfortunate one) that 'everyone' seems to have quickly acquired the idea that this was the order of personal importance to the group as a whole.  The Beatles themselves didn't choose this, no.  But it soon became unalterable, ineluctable perception (even amomg their fans). As we have seen; it was not even the order of individual popularity with the fans (cf. my thread RINGO - EVERYBODY's *SECOND* FAVOURITE BEATLE): Paul was always the 'hearthrob' in those days, with George in fact second (well behind!) and John and Ringo jointly 'bringing up the rear' in this regard.  So; nope!  Again: say whatever you will; I shall still always insist that crude perception of their personal importance: this was/is (unfortunately) sole reason for it, always was. 

If you want to argue - and I would be absolutley with you on that - that this was indeed crude, unfortunate, misleading, and took no accouunt of the REAL subtleties of making music together? ABSOLUTELY!  All of that! I would agree 100%.  Consider my point, raised also in an earlier post on this thread (cf. - allegedly said by Brian Epstein, confidentially "You, John are the mind, and Paul is the group's heart [he was then, certainly, as we see] and George [undoubtedly the most spiritual of the four, as he openly became - from about 1967 - as we also know] is its soul."  John asks "And what about Ringo?"  "Ringo is the flesh and blood."  UNDOUBTEDLY TRUE all of this - and if Epstein never said this in fact then he should have!!  

The following people thank edwardtheconfessor for this post:

Von Bontee

RWS_Tarot_00_Fool.jpg     "And, in the end; the love you take - is equal to the love YOU MAKE!" "Nowhere Man, THE WORLD is AT YOUR COMMAND!"

6 September 2020
6.50am
Avatar
alittlebitolder
There Is A Place
Ed Sullivan Show
Members
Forum Posts: 425
Member Since:
28 April 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Keeping it simple, the order they joined was John, Paul, George and Ringo.

From a sound point of view, Ringo has to go last as he has two syllables in his name. This is much the same as Lennon & McCartney sounds better than McCartney & Lennon. John and Paul are shorter names, so sound better at the start, and George being slightly longer fits in well as the third name! 

I also think at the beginning of Beatlemania, John and Paul were the bigger personalities, and while Ringo has a big personality, he had only just joined the group.

6 September 2020
11.56am
Avatar
Von Bontee
A Hole In The Road
Rishikesh
Members
Forum Posts: 4474
Member Since:
14 December 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

edwardtheconfessor said
Hi everyone!  I'm back (thread starter, if memories go back that far - lol!).

Seems clear; I did the right thing stepping back for a while and letting a debate flow a bit.  It sure seems to be doing that now! GREAT! (Let's hope we can keep it friendly - mock contentious, is of course all part of the fun... so long as it remains 'mock'!).

HOWEVER:- !!!!!

Von Bontee said

Tony Japanese said

I was thinking about this thread earlier today (as you do) and my answer to the question, 'why John, Paul, George and Ringo' is because of the following:

Band line ups should be listed in the following sequence (in order of importance):

4. Singer

6. Songwriter

2. Guitarist (a. Lead, b. Rhythm)

3. Bassist

5. Other Instruments

1. Drummer.

  

Fixed!

apple01

  

NO!!!!  I admit to being very confused by the  nunbering system used in the above listing.  However, I can see no other way to make sensible response here; than to take the above listing as if it were a simple 'top to bottom' listing of importance - which I think is what the original poster meant?? If so, then, therfore:-

Hi Edward, great to see you back!

Just to clarify, my impetuous re-ranking of Tony's list referred to my general opinion on rock-band instrunentation *in general*, not the Beatles specifically; I don't actually think Ringo is the most important. But I do kinda prioritize drumming, and believe that a poor drummer does more damage to a band than would a poor singer, or guitarist or whoever.

The following people thank Von Bontee for this post:

edwardtheconfessor

One day, a tape-op got a tape on backwards, he went to play it, and it was all "Neeeradno-undowarrroom" and it was "Wow! Sounds Indian!"
-- Paul McCartney

                 Winner-Funniest-Post-and-Most-Creative-Contribution-2017-1.pngfunniest-post-badge2018.png

7 September 2020
11.59am
Avatar
edwardtheconfessor
Yellow Submarine in a Sea of Holes in Pepperland
The Indra
Members
Forum Posts: 36
Member Since:
6 July 2020
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

alittlebitolder said
Keeping it simple, the order they joined was John, Paul, George and Ringo.

From a sound point of view, Ringo has to go last as he has two syllables in his name. This is much the same as Lennon & McCartney sounds better than McCartney & Lennon. John and Paul are shorter names, so sound better at the start, and George being slightly longer fits in well as the third name! 

I also think at the beginning of Beatlemania, John and Paul were the bigger personalities, and while Ringo has a big personality, he had only just joined the group.

  

Thank you  for this reply, alittlebitolder.  However, if you care to go back a little on this thread, you will see that the first two of your points have already been made earlier by other posters (though that is not to say, of course, that you are not entitled to repeat them).  Nevertheless, I have in fact replied fully to the first point (about alleged 'order of joining') in my response to meanmistermustard's post (#5 on this thread of 1st Aug - and check out also my reply (#7 on this thread, and of same date)).  I think I have there dealt fully with this such attempt to justify this habitual 'pecking order' (as it so very soon, and so very unalterably, became) - and shown, I think, why - from a stirctly factual biogrpahical point of view - this is simply not correct... and that it was, in reality, rather different from, and more complicated than, this (allleged) simple linearity of order of joining.  Anyone who will gainsay this, I would advise to read (if they have not already done so) one of several now avaliable excellent biogrpahies which tell The Beatles' (true) story, and from the very beginning. 

In any case - as I have also pointed out on previous posts on this thread - when Beatlemania first started here in UK (and we see, that this hackneyed 'pecking order' had already become universal speak, even as early as the release of their first album 'Please Please Me ' (in early 1963)); [read the original sleeve notes, if you doubt this]... the fact is that most of those people (including, as I have said, the 'old squares' who detested their music at first and essayed to put them down as 'non-muscians' who could do nothing but shout 'Yeah, Yeah, Yeah'!) - well, most of them knew NOTHING AT ALL about the history of The Beatles, and cared even less - yet they could all recite this already cliched 'pecking order' listing, and all of them 'trotting it out' as merely another way of saying 'The Beatles' (indeed, even if this was only to insult them!). 

In matter of fact, the (full and true) history of The Beatles was then known by very few, even of their fans.  The tragic death of Stuart Sutcliffe (his head kicked in by jealous teenage thugs on the streets of Lliverpool, just as The Bealtes were, in fact, on the verge of national recognition at last and on the brink of a recording contract (Sutcliffe himself, as it happened - and tragicallly ironically (now engaged to Astrid): at the point of leaving anyhow); the cowardly (I will say so; since none of them had the guts to tell him to his face - they left it to Epstein) sacking of Pete Best (because they wanted Ringo); Epstein's - originally - homosexual attraction to them (especially to John); howbeit he was also a dillgent and conscientious manager to them all and never sought to push this; the stormy personal and family history of most them (including John, who was illegitimate); the seedy side of working class Liverpool and Hamburg at that time, in which they grew up and started to make their music  (including the sex shops and nudist shows and etcetera) - indeed, what the Hamburg in which they played those long, long eight-hour stints, got little sleep and hardly ate properly, and kept going on pills; what this was really like (a couple of The Beatles nearly got arrested in Hamburg at one point, as a matter of fact) and so on -

... well NONE of this would have been very good PR, would it - during those years of Beatlemania, when the whole publicity machine around them wanted to spin such a 'squeaky clean - just four nice working class lads from Liverpool, who made good in the end' image (and, of course, no mention of how, in reality, they were turned down at first by a fistful of record companies, and only got in on the obscure label Parlophone - as I always put it, 'through a crack in the door' (I have mentioned this too, in other posts and on other threads).  I myself, as a 'Beatle-stricken' 12-year old fan (in late 1963) knew nothing about all this either.  Almost no-one did  (except The Beatles themselves, their immediate families, and no doubt Brian Epstein and George Martin - and The Beatles' two roadies of course (Mal Evans and Neil Aspinall)).  It was all kept very 'hush hush' in those days.  The real and full story (with all the details - good, bad and ugly) never became fully public until decades later. So no; I absolutely MUST reject the assertion about alleged 'order of joining' :- attempted, once again, as I believe it is; as a kind of justification for this hackneyed, and very unblananced 'pecking order; of the time but, in fact,  constructed, once again, after the event in an attempt to mitigate it.  NO, once again.  I'm sorry. 

[I feel it only right to respond also to the second and third points which you raise: - about the 'phonetics' of calling out their names in some kind of order of this or that, and about the percieved comparative magnetisms of their individual personalites (to paraphrase you a little here, if I may) and I think that latter is an interesting and novel point and worthy of deabte... and, in fact, kelicopter, meanmistermustard (and others) have also raised the point about how facilely - or otherwise - various possible orders of the name llisting allegedly 'roll off the tongue' (your second point) (check out post #5 on this thread by meanmistermustard - and also post #17 of this thread by kelicopter):- Well, these points are all worthy of a considered reply, or further reply,  also.

But I think it wise of me to, again, 'step back' for a little while, and 'leave space' here for others to 'chip in' with their own thoughts and opinions (including on what I have just argued above?)

Regards all - edwadtheconfessor]

RWS_Tarot_00_Fool.jpg     "And, in the end; the love you take - is equal to the love YOU MAKE!" "Nowhere Man, THE WORLD is AT YOUR COMMAND!"

Forum Timezone: America/Chicago
Most Users Ever Online: 700
Currently Online: Joe, AppleScruffJunior, Ahhh Girl
Guest(s) 1
Top Posters:
Starr Shine?: 15940
Ron Nasty: 10921
50yearslate: 8623
Necko: 7911
AppleScruffJunior: 7225
parlance: 7111
mr. Sun king coming together: 6403
Mr. Kite: 6147
trcanberra: 6064
sir walter raleigh: 5138
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 87
Members: 2587
Moderators: 6
Admins: 1
Forum Stats:
Groups: 3
Forums: 44
Topics: 4912
Posts: 351319
Newest Members:
Tom Pickett, fueradeljuego, sanjoyss, Stephen Lennon, doubleo
Moderators: Joe: 5114, Zig: 9812, meanmistermustard: 23275, Ahhh Girl: 19495, Beatlebug: 17339, The Hole Got Fixed: 7967
Administrators: Joe: 5114